Norman Baker: I am grateful for your support, Madam Deputy Speaker.
	The third petition is from Councillor Ann De Vecchi and others of like disposition and concerns a local matter which has had considerable cross-party support over a long period: the campaign to re-open the Lewes-Uckfield railway line which East Sussex county council closed in 1969.
	The petition states:
	Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your honourable House shall urge the Department for Transport to consider the immediate reinstatement of the double track railway line between Lewes and Uckfield.
	And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.
	 To lie upon the Table.

Norman Baker: The fourth petition is also from Councillor Ann De Vecchi and others of like disposition and represents the concerns of the farming community in my constituency, in particular about the drop in milk prices paid to farmers.
	The petition states:
	Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your honourable House shall urge the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to introduce a tough, legally binding supermarket code effective for the whole food chain from farm to fork to ensure all supermarkets do not exploit suppliers, farmers or consumers and establish a Food Trade inspector with powers to investigate proactively any abuse of market power.
	And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, ever pray.
	 To lie upon the Table.

Norman Baker: The final petition is from Councillor James MacCleary and others of like disposition and concerns the practice of the Japanese Governmentof influencing other countries—inappropriately, the petitioners believe—to support Japan's position in negotiations at the International Whaling Commission to end the moratorium on whaling.
	The petition states:
	Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your honourableHouse shall urge the Foreign Office and the Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to make representations to the Japanese Government, and all of her client states on the International Whaling Commission, to refrain from removing the international moratorium on commercial whaling.
	And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.
	 To lie upon the Table.

David Heath: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Those of us who were in the No Lobby just a moment ago exercising our vote were disturbed to see a substantial trip hazard. A bucket has been placed in the middle of the Lobby. Is it possible to investigate the matter and to ensure that there is no danger to Members exercising their vote later in the morning?

Madam Deputy Speaker: I remind the House that with this we are discussing the following amendments:
	No. 14, in page 1, leave out lines 7 to 12 and insert—
	'(1) For the purposes of section 41(1), information which—
	(a) is held only by virtue of being contained in a communication between a member of the House of Commons, acting in his capacity as such, and a public authority, and
	(b) consists of information relating to the personal affairs of a constituent of that member
	shall, unless the contrary is indicated, be deemed to have been communicated in circumstances importing an obligation of confidence.'.
	No. 40, in page 1, leave out lines 7 to 12 and insert—
	'(1) For the purposes of section 41(1), information which—
	(a) is held only by virtue of being contained in a communication between a member of the House of Commons, acting in his capacity as such, or a member of the House of Lords, and a public authority, and
	(b) in the case of a member of the House of Commons, consists of information relating to the personal affairs of a constituent of that member,
	shall, unless the contrary is indicated, be deemed to have been communicated in circumstances importing an obligation of confidence.'.
	No. 10, in page 1, line 7, leave out from beginning to end of line 9 and insert—
	'(1) Information is exempt information if—
	(a) it is held only by virtue of being contained in any communication between a member of the House of Commons, acting in his capacity as such, and a public authority, and
	(b) it consists of personal data relating to a constituent of that member, and
	(c) the constituent has not consented to its disclosure.'.
	No. 11, in page 1, line 7, leave out from beginning to end of line 9 and insert—
	'(1) Information is exempt information if—
	(a) it is held only by virtue of being contained in any communication between a member of the House of Commons, acting in his capacity as such, and a public authority, and
	(b) it consists of—
	(i) personal data relating to an individual in connection with whom the member has made representations or enquiries and the individual has not consented to its disclosure, or
	(ii) information relating to the personal affairs of a deceased individual.'.
	No. 41, in page 1, line 7, leave out from beginning to end of line 9 and insert—
	'(1) Information is exempt information if—
	(a) it is held only by virtue of being contained in any communication between a member of the House of Commons, acting in his capacity as such, or a member of the House of Lords, and a public authority, and, in the case of a member of the House of Commons,
	(b) it consists of personal data relating to a constituent of that member, and
	(c) the constituent has not consented to its disclosure.'.
	No. 42, in page 1, line 7, leave out from beginning to end of line 9 and insert—
	'(1) Information is exempt information if—
	(a) it is held only by virtue of being contained in any communication between a member of the House of Commons, acting in his capacity as such, or a member of the House of Lords, and a public authority, and
	(b) if consists of—
	(i) personal data relating to an individual in connection with whom the member has made representations or enquiries and the individual has not consented to its disclosure, or
	(ii) information relating to the personal affairs of a deceased individual.'.
	No. 12, in page 1, line 9, at end insert
	', except insofar as it relates to any representations which the member has made to the authority in connection with—
	(a) any matter of policy which it has adopted or may adopt, or
	(b) any decision which it has taken or may take other than a decision expressed in terms which affect only the personal affairs of a particular individual or individuals.'.
	No. 24, in page 1, line 9, at end insert—
	'(1A) Information is not exempt by virtue of this section if it is—
	(a) contained in a communication made to or received from a public authority from whom the member receives any remuneration or benefit, and
	(b) relates to that remuneration or benefit whether or not the remuneration or benefit is recorded in the Register of Members' Interests.'.
	No. 44, in page 1, line 9, at end insert—
	'(1A) Information is not exempt by virtue of this section if it is contained in any letter between a member of the House of Commons or House of Lords and a Government minister.'.
	No. 25, in page 1, line 12, at end insert—
	'(3) For the purposes of this section "communication" meansa communication in writing, or by electronic means, made bya member to a public authority or by a public authority to a member but does not include a record of a meeting, or of a conversation, between a member and a person or persons acting on behalf of the public authority.'.
	No. 26, in page 1, line 12, at end insert—
	'(3) This section does not apply to any communication made before the Act comes into force.'.
	No. 39, in page 1, line 12, at end insert—
	'(3) Information is not exempt by virtue of this section if it is contained in a communication between a member of the House of Commons, acting in his capacity as such, and a public authority, relating to any proposed legislation which was before either House of Parliament at the time of the communication.
	(4) In this section, "legislation" means any of the following—
	(a) a public general Act or local Act (whether passed before or after the commencement of this section), or
	(b) any Order in Council, order, rules, regulations, scheme, warrant, byelaw or other instrument made under an Act referred to in paragraph (a).'.
	No. 45, in page 1, line 12, at end insert—
	'(3) For the purposes of this section "letter" means a communication in writing, made by a member to a public authority or by a public authority to a member, but does not include—
	(a) exclusively electronic means of communication, or
	(b) a telex, telegram or facsimile transmission.'.
	No. 16, in page 1, line 13, leave out subsection (4) and insert—
	'(4) After section 63(1) insert—
	"(1A) Information contained in a historical record cannot be exempt information by virtue of section 34A except insofar as it consists of personal data information relating to the personal affairs of a living individual who can be identified from that record or from that record and other information which is in the possession of, or is likely to come into the possession of, the public authority."'.
	No. 36, in title, line 2, after second 'and', insert 'certain'.

Norman Baker: I heard your comments of course, Madam Deputy Speaker, a few moments ago and I will abide by them, naturally. It is my intention not to repeat anything that was said on a previous occasion. There are many others—not least on the Liberal Democrat Benches—who wish to contribute to this debate and I am very keen that they be heard.
	For the sake of clarity, I have formally moved amendment No. 2, which is the lead amendment inthis group. According to column 602 of  Hansard of20 April 2007, I have already done so. I do not believe that I did, but for the avoidance of doubt I do so now and indicate that I wish to divide the House on this crucial amendment, as and when we reach that stage.
	I should say how grateful I am to Mr. Speaker forhis response to the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) on Wednesday, when he said:
	"I am here to defend Back Benchers, and on Friday everyone will get a voice in this Chamber."—[ Official Report, 16 May 2007; Vol. 460, c. 625.]
	That is a splendid statement from Mr. Speaker, and I am very grateful to him for allowing that to be the case.

Simon Burns: If the hon. Gentleman's interpretation is correct, why was a daily regional newspaper in the eastern region was able to secure, under existing legislation, the correspondence of the hon. Member for Colchester with the chief executive of Colchester borough council?

Norman Baker: Well, I am trying to answer thepoint that the hon. Gentleman has already made. If correspondence has been released contrary to the law, the answer is that the law needs to be enforced, rather than simply passing a further law to say the same thing. I am not familiar with the case, but I hesitate to agree, even if I accept that version of events.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Lewes must be allowed to reply to the intervention.

Norman Baker: We have been looking for them. Indeed, with the publicity that the Bill has had, we have expected them to come out of the woodwork. We expected MPs from all parties to say, "Yes, this has happened to me." However, that has not happened at all. We have had no such examples. In Committee, all we heard were theoretical examples that have not happened.

Norman Baker: That is correct. The right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (David Maclean) is in his place. Apparently he has many supporters, including those on the Conservative and Government Front Benches. Perhaps some of them will come forward with some arguments, because it is a curious boxing match that has only one person in the ring.

Norman Baker: The point that my hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit pik) was making was that the Freedom of Information Act already includes many exemptions for public bodies. The data protection legislation also includes somestrict regulations that make the protection of correspondence and information about individuals very strong. It is difficult to obtain information; in fact, Members of Parliament have complained that they are even being asked to sign documentation to the effect that they are acting properly on behalf of their constituents. If anything, public authorities are keen not to release information.

David Howarth: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. My difficulty is that I thought I heard the hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker) say that it will be recorded in  Hansard that at the start of his speech he did in fact propose the question. He proposed the question in the course of his speech, too, so I cannot see why we should vote on something that has already been done.

David Howarth: If the Government are not supporting the Bill, how does the Minister explain the fact that when we voted on this matter a couple of weeks ago, the vast majority of the people who votedin the Bill's favour were Government Ministers, Government Whips and Opposition Whips?

Bridget Prentice: Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker. I want to move on, so that we can move the debate on.
	Amendments Nos. 12, 24, 39 and 44 would qualify the new exemption so that public authorities would need to consider the public interest in withholdingor releasing Members' correspondence. The public interest test can encompass all the factors mentioned in the amendments, including any relationship that the Member may have with the public authority in question and the nature of the informationwhether it is about general policy or an individual case.
	I am not sure that the House would wish, through amendments Nos. 25 and 45, to create an exemption limited to letters and electronic correspondence. I suggest that we should guard against inhibiting such communications, which might cause Members to decide to discuss some of the important matters that their constituents raise only in meetings or on the telephone, rather than commit themselves to paper.
	Amendments Nos. 10, 11, 16, 41 and 42 relate to personal data. The personal information contained in MPs' correspondence is already covered by the exemption as drafted. It is for the House to determine the scope and the extent of that exemption, but I remind hon. Members that there is already an exemption for personal data.

Fiona Mactaggart: The Minister makes the reasonable point that it is not good enough to say that information should not have been released once ithas been releasedbut I ask her, as the Minister responsible for the Freedom of Information Act 2000, what action she is taking with regard to authorities that wrongly release information. What training scheme does she have in place? As she pointed out, public authorities have released information when legally they should not have done so; how will she prevent them from doing that, and why does she believe that another law will be better obeyed than the present law?

David Heath: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that intervention, which crystallises many of the arguments about the lack of evidence. First, he makes the point that none of the reports of the Information Commissioner has suggested that the issue is widespread. Secondly, the public interest override is retained.
	The Minister asserted that amendment No. 14 made matters more complicated because it made it more difficult to interpret the public interest override. Absolute nonsense. It is still there. Whoever wrote that briefing for her was in a very confused state of mind when doing so. Nothing changes as a result of the amendment being passed, other than a tightening of the exempt material so that we are clear what is the exempt material and the mischief that the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border presumably has it in mind to remedy. Some of us do not believe that mischief exists, but he does. We are therefore helping him by tabling amendments that identify that mischief in specific terms, rather than in general terms that are likely to bring the House into disrepute.

David Heath: Of course there is. There are all manner of provisions in the original enactment that safeguard the interests of the individual. That is why the whole Bill is otiose in the extreme.

David Howarth: I thank my hon. Friend for giving way and understand his impatience to get on to the substance of the amendments before the House. To reassure the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Ms Keeble), it is an important principle to bear in mind that we are talking about Parliament being a public authority and subject to the Act, not individual MPs. Individual MPs have never counted as public authorities and therefore have never been subject tothe Act.

David Heath: Let me develop my argument a little, ifI may.
	There would be a serious imbalance in interpreting the legislation on the part of other authorities or individuals, because the House of the Commons and the House of Lords would not be a public body, but the body to which we were correspondingwhich is, by definition, one of those covered by the 2000 Actwould. We would be in the extraordinary position that no application could be made to the House of Commons or the House of Lords on one side of any dialogue or correspondence, but the application could be madewithout exemptions, were the amendment to be madeon the other side. There would be a fundamental imbalance.
	Some might argue that amendment No. 2 would be an improvement because it would make it even more obvious what an absurd Bill it is. However, on balance I prefer a Bill to have a degree of internal integrity and equilibrium in its structure. I fear that the amendment would lose that and create an unbalanced Bill.

David Maclean: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third Time.
	I accept the genuine opinions of Members in all parts of the House who take a serious view of the Freedom of Information Act, support the Act, and oppose the Bill on principle. But I must tell some Members that I do not think they have helped their cause by supporting the hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker), who has made clear in the press on countless occasions that his intention on the past few Fridays has been not to amend the Bill or make it work better, but to prevent it from passing to the House of Lords today. He has stated:
	This will do nothing to enhance the reputation of MPs and I and others

Fiona Mactaggart: The point I wished to intervene on was that the right hon. Gentleman referred to the amount of amendments that had been tabled and said that that was part of a movement to oppose the entire Bill. Does he accept that one of the reasons for that is his failure to justify his Bill? He has not spoken in favour of it until now.
	Also, the point that the right hon. Gentleman is now making would have been covered by an amendment which he has voted against. The issue on which he is depending is that the Bill is required in order to protect correspondence about individual constituents, but he voted against an amendment which narrowed the protection precisely to that point, and which stopped the protection in his Bill in respect of much wider areas of correspondence. Will he use the opportunity of this Third Reading speech to justify that?

David Maclean: Not yet. Please let me finish my sentence, because this is a very important point. The main, ill-informed criticism that I have received from outside, including from the mediaegged on by some hon. Membershas been about expenses. Mr. Speaker, as Chairman of the Members Estimate Committee, has made it crystal clear that we will continue to publishin October or thereabouts the totals for modes of transport such as bicycles, cars, planes and trains;that we will continue to publish the totals for the incidental expenses allowance, the new communications allowance, allowances for secretarial matters and administration, and the additional costs allowance. I do not wish to cast aspersions on the hon. Member for Lewes once again, but I think that he suggested in a debate on the previous group of amendments that this was a passing fancy and that, of course, Mr. Speaker could change his mind. I find that absolutely deplorable.

Mark Fisher: I am most grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. He is a very experienced parliamentarian and he understands the significance of the Pepper  v. Hart situation. He knows that there is a total difference between this House volunteering, out of its own good will and courtesy to the public, to publish these expenses, and what is in a Bill. Through his Bill, he would be changing the Freedom of Information Act 2000 so that we are exempt and do not in law have to publish such things. The fact that we have an assurance from the current Speaker that he will continue with publication is irrelevant. It is not right that we should set ourselves above the law, saying that out of courtesy we publish such things, but the law does not require us to do so. The right hon. Gentleman understands what Pepper  v. Hart is all about. What is said in this House and in correspondence to him by the Speaker does not have the force of law. We are exempting ourselves from the obligation to publish

Mark Fisher: This is a bad day for Parliamenta sad day. Members should understand what we would be doing by giving the Bill a Third Reading and sending it to the other place. We are saying to the public that although we only recently passed an important piece of legislation, which should be a terrific jewel in the crown of the Government, to introduce freedom of information in this country at lasta measure that has been in force only two and a half yearswe are now moving to exempt Parliament and Members of Parliament from the provisions of that Act.
	If we give the Bill a Third Reading, and if it ever becomes an Act of Parliament, we shall be saying to the public, We believe in freedom of information. We have enacted a major statute on freedom of information that applies to all public bodiespolice authorities, health trusts and so onbut we alone are exempt. We are above the law. We shall be saying that it is right and proper that everybody should abide by freedom of information legislation except Membersof Parliamentthat we do not wish to be subject tothe law.
	That would be an extraordinary thing for the House to say. It would inevitably bring this place into complete contemptsubject to the ridicule of the public. How would the public judge us? After all our fine words in this place about openness, transparency and wanting everyone to see what is being done in the name of democracy, we are saying that when it comes to freedom of information we are giving ourselves an exemption. Such a proposal is ridiculous and it is extraordinary that the Bill has not been laughed out of court. It is absolute nonsense.
	There were years of thinking behind the Freedom of Information Act. We were one of the last democracies to introduce such legislation and for years, through the late 1980s and the 1990s, we looked at legislation in Australia, New Zealand, Canada and the United States and learned from it. In 1993, I introduced the Right to Know Bill, which was based on best practice in other countries at the time. If a Labour Government had been elected in 1992, the then shadow Home Secretarynow Lord Hattersleywould have introduced legislation but, like the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (David Maclean), I was lucky enough to be able to promote a private Member's Bill and picked up the measure that the then shadow Home Secretary had drafted. We had the help of the Campaign for Freedom of Information and Mr. Maurice Frankel, and other experts on the subject, who had studied freedom of information measures all over the world, in producing a state of the art Bill. It had commitment and support from the then leader of the Labour party, Neil, now Lord, Kinnock and, subsequently, the passionate support of the next leader of the Labour party, John Smith.
	Labour was committed to introducing freedom of information legislation in the event of its forming a Government. I was thrilled when we became a Government and the Prime Minister said that we would go ahead. He set up a Cabinet Sub-Committee, of which I was honoured to be member, to examine how we would change the good thinking in the Right to Know Bill and all the work that had been done around the world into a White Paper, in preparation for an Act of Parliament.

Julia Goldsworthy: The hon. Gentleman will probably recall that the draft Bill did not originally include the Houses of Parliament and that it wasonly following the recommendation of the Public Administration Committee that the Commons and the Lords were included. Is he aware of whether or not that Committee has changed its views since its initial recommendations?

Kevan Jones: May I point out to my hon. Friend that if he cared to read the proceedings of the Public Bill Committee, he would know that the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (David Maclean) spoke at length in support of his Bill and answered some of the points that have been raised? Today isnot the first time that the right hon. Gentleman has done so.

David Maclean: I posed the question because the answer is none. Not one minute in Standing Committee, not one minute on Report and not one minute on Second Reading was devoted to including the House of Commons in that Bill. The provisionwas added without any debate, so it did not receive15 years' consideration. The Freedom of Information Act generally did, but including the House of Commons in it received no considerationit was added by mistake.

Mark Fisher: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border is addressing the sensitivities and shyness of parliamentarians about their correspondence, expenses and information. I do not know how much he has studied such legislation throughout the world, but I do not think he understands what an enormously dramatic thing he is doing and how completely he is undermining existing legislation. As my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central (Jim Cousins) suggests, the Freedom of Information Act 2000 goes wider than the issue that the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border is addressing, yet much of it must go through the conduit of parliamentarians. If we are exempt, the whole Act, to the extent to which it comes through parliamentarians, is affected. Ultimately, whom else should it come through? We are the ultimate democratic body, and it is through us that people should test, argue about and explore matters of public policy and concern.
	I hope that I am not misrepresenting the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border, but I do not think that he understands what a devastating Bill this is. As he said in his few remarks, these are difficult areas. The way in which the legislation is applied to public bodies is inconsistent. The Act has been in force for only two and a half years and people are uncertain about its application. The problems that he has brought to the attention of the House arise through the ignorance of individual officials and a lack of understanding. He is right to say that those problems have to be addressed, but not by changing the law. If we change the law and exempt ourselves, we are saying to all the other bodies that we have no confidence in the law. Those bodies will ask why on earth they should trouble themselves with freedom of information legislation if Parliament, which passed the Act in the first place, does not takeit seriously. Trade unions, health trusts and chief constables will ask why they should bother when Parliament does not think that it is worth reporting these things.

Mark Fisher: Let me finish the point. All of us on both sides of the House agree that one of the best appointments to a public body that the Government have made has been that of Mr. Richard Thomas as Information Commissioner. He has gained plaudits from everybody. He has integrity, he is tough and he is extremely knowledgeable, yet his office has received none of the complaints or queries that the right hon. Gentleman claims his Bill will address. That seems strange.
	If there is an outrage such that the right hon. Gentleman wants to tackle it through the Bill, one would have thought that one problem might havebeen brought to the attention of the Information Commissioner. The right hon. Gentleman says that the House of Commons Library cannot be all-knowing, but most Members' experience of the Library is that most of its staff are brilliantvery much cleverer and more qualified than we areand give this House superb service. They have stated categorically that they are aware of no problems of the sort that he has identifiedno such problem has been brought to their attention.
	The Bill seems to be addressing a problem that does not exist, except in the eyes and mind of the right hon. Gentleman and the few Members who have spoken to him privately and anecdotally, saying, We're very worried. I have a particularly nasty constituency case here. I am sure that they have and that such cases exist, but that is because the Freedom of Information Act is new legislationonly two and a half years oldand the people in local authorities and other public bodies who are applying it have not yet learned how it works. Of course mistakes are made, but when that happens the answer is not to change the law completely and so radically.

David Howarth: Most of the examples of data being wrongly released that have been given involve breaking the law. The fundamental question that the promoter has failed to answer is why he believes that passing more legislation will prevent people from breakingthe law.

Simon Hughes: It is.
	Colleagues here who represent Wales and Scotland understand that we are in danger of further confusing the interconnection of our representative responsibilities. My hon. Friend the Member for East Dunbartonshire (Jo Swinson) made the extremely good point earlier that she might have to decide whether to write to a UK Government agency based in Scotland or one based in England, because the legislation in Scotland would be different from that in England. That would clearly be nonsense. There would also be different rules covering institutions abroad to which we might write. If we were dealing with agricultural payments, for example, and writing not only to the UK Government but to the Commission in Brussels, different rules might apply in each case.
	I now want to deal with what I hope the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border and colleagues will accept is the most substantive reason why we do not have to go down this road, and why it would not only discredit this place but be unnecessary, wrong and foolish to do so. I have checked carefully with all the authorities, and since 1998 a huge amount of guidance, and a huge number of documents and regulations, have been produced to assist everybody to behave better in this matter.
	Although we passed the Freedom of Information Act in 2000, it took five years to come into force, and in 1998 we passed the Data Protection Act. To put it simplistically, the Data Protection Act deals with how we access our own information, and the Freedom of Information Act deals with how we access information about others. Clause 2 of the Data Protection Act defines sensitive personal data as,
	the racial or ethnic origin of the data subject...his political opinions...his religious beliefs or other beliefs...whether he is a member of a trade union...physical or mental health or condition...sexual life... commission or alleged commission by him of any offence, or...proceedings for any offence.
	Therefore, some things were made sacrosanct from the beginning.
	As I said in my intervention on my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Norman Baker) this also relates to the point made by the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central (Jim Cousins) about parliamentary privilegesections 21 to 44 of the Freedom of Information Act provide exemptions anyway, some qualified and some not. Those are provided for all sorts of reasons: law enforcement; investigations and proceedings conducted by public authorities; prejudice to effective conduct of public affairs; health and safety; personal information; commercial interests; and, expressly, information provided in confidence. Some Members pushed for wider freedom of information, but, ultimately, there were lots of exemptions.
	As my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) reminded the House, we also passed the Data Protection (Processing Of Sensitive Personal Data) (Elected Representatives) Order 2002, under which Members of Parliament who write to authorities do not have to have express consent, because the implication is that people who come to see us and ask for help give their consent in doing so. That has made life easier.
	Therefore, only five years ago we moved in the direction of providing more security to the protected route. Since then, we have had the Information Commissioner's guidelines in 2004, the Department for Constitutional Affairs code of practice in November 2004, advice for Members' offices in this place in April 2005, a House of Commons standard note on freedom of information requests in June 2005, a House of Commons freedom of information note in November 2005, the Information Commissioner's Office's Freedom of Information Awareness GuidanceNos. 1, 2 and 13in 2006 and 2007, and a further note from the House of Commons. So much guidance has been given to authorities.
	To deal with the concerns of the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border, any authority or organisation can find guidance as to what they need to do on the Information Commissioner's Office website. There are also two sanctions. First, if judgment is incorrectly exercised, it can be challengedalthough of course, that is not as good as its not having been incorrectly exercised. Secondly, if people break the law they can be prosecuted, and the Information Commissioner willdo that.
	I want to make a suggestion that I hope that the House will regard as constructive and sensible. We should say no to the Bill, because it is an overreaction to a set of issues that have either not been addressed or not been evidenced. If the House of Commons Commission has continuing concerns, it should ask an appropriate cross-party Committee to consider the matter, and a deliberative exercise should take place in which the Information Commissioner is asked to give evidence, colleagues can give evidence and the public can give evidence too.
	It would be really stupid and foolish, however, for us to legislate to take the Parliament of the United Kingdom out of freedom of information legislation on the basis that it will protect our relationship with our constituents, which in almost every case has worked exceptionally well, with no evidence of any significant failure to date. I hope that the House will be clear about that.
	I understand why the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border introduced the Bill. However, I hope that, having heard so little argument that justifies its support, the House will say no to itand that if this House does not do that, the House of Lords will do what it often has to do, and stand up for the citizen against Parliament rather than standing up for Parliament against the citizen.

Bridget Prentice: I cannot accept that on the following basis: it is not for me to instruct, encourage or advise Members on the contents of their speeches on this Bill. I have tried to make it clear in this debate and on previous occasions that the Government are neutral on this Bill. It is entirely up to individual Members to decide which side of the fence they are on. If my hon. Friend feels that a convincing argument has not been made by the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border and others, he should vote accordingly. I am not prepared to say or do anything to influence himon that.

Julia Goldsworthy: There has been an exchange about the need for regulation and how the area is woolly. Surely the key problem is that if there is a lack of awareness, it is important that enforcement action is taken when breaches of FOI legislation take place, rather than simply more regulation to confuse the matter even more?

David Winnick: I find it difficult to believe that the occupants of the Front Benches are neutral. I can only come to the obvious conclusion that they support the measure. Nor should there be any doubt about those hon. Members who have come in to support the Bill. There has been a campaignin line with parliamentary tradition, I supposeto get Parliamentary Private Secretaries and Ministers into the Chamber. Some have come in, and others have refused or have other duties. Otherwise there would not have been 100 voting for the closure motion.
	The right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (David Maclean) has said that the amendments are wrecking amendments. All that I would say about the amendments is that, if the Bill is to become law, it would be better were the amendments carried. They would make the Bill less obnoxious. I am totally opposed to what the right hon. Gentleman seeks to do. It is wrong and it is against the interests of Parliament. We are in danger of bringing ourselves into disrepute.
	Nor do I for one moment accept the justification made repeatedly that the measure is about confidentiality. Let me make it clear: when constituents write to me, as they have done over all the years that I have been a Member, they do so on the basis that their letters are confidential, and when I write on their behalf to officialdomwhich, like other Members, I do day in, day outI work on the assumption that the information, some of which is extremely personal, is confidential. If there is a problem, the Data Protection Act could be used.
	The parliamentary Labour party received a letter telling us about the advantages of the Bill in preserving confidentiality. The Library was asked to comment and noted that in Committee
	Members who spoke did not cite cases where correspondence had actually been released. There was more concern about the threat of release.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, South(Sir Peter Soulsby) pointed out that he was neutral, although in cases of breaches of confidentiality there could be an argument for the measure, but I do not believe that there is any such necessity or justification.
	It has been said that information about expenses could be requested that was completely unjustified, because it related not to us but to our staff. In fact, an application was made in respect of Members' staff, but no one would justify thatnot that I would call it expenses; I pay my secretary a salary, not expenses. A certificate was issued by the Speaker under section 36(6) of the Freedom of Information Act to stop the information being given. The Speaker has the necessary authority and has used it to issue five certificates. In my view, his authority is justified and in the case of essential protections there is sufficient leeway in the existing law.
	It has been said that if the Bill becomes law, information about our expenses will be published. I have no doubt that the Speaker's letter reflects what will happen, but there are some interesting points. Publication would be optional; it will not be part of the law. What a future House of Commons will do is a different matterthe process is entirely optional. Any local authority could make the same argument. Local councils could say that they did not need the law because they had given assurances that the necessary information about councillors' expenses would be published. Would we really be satisfied with that? If not, why should people be satisfied with what is being proposed in the Billthat publication would be optional? Why should we be different?
	The House of Commons should give a lead. We should set an example to the country of honesty and integrity, not find squalid ways to get round the law.

David Maclean: rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.
	 Question put, that the Question be now put:
	 The House proceeded to a Division.

Simon Hughes: I am grateful to Mr. Speaker for selecting this subject, and to the Minister for Trade for attending. I greatly appreciate his interest, and the way in which he always engages constructively with Members throughout the House. I say that most sincerely.
	The debate was prompted by the sudden appearance on the radar of the uncertain future of the Borough High Street post office in the London borough of Southwark, in my constituency. I received a letter about it, dated 19 April this year, from Alan Cook, managing director of Post Office Ltd, setting out the general plans as they affect Crown post offices across the country.
	I stress that this is separate from the decision announced this week by the Secretary of State for trade and Industry, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Susan Kramer) responded on behalf of my colleagues and myself. That decision related to the general outcome of the review of post offices across the country. Within a matter of weeks it has been announced that many Crown post offices in greater London are to be franchised to WH Smith, and that othersincluding the Borough High Street branchface an uncertain future. Then, this week, it was announced that thousands of other sub-post offices around the country would be similarly affected.
	The proposal that came to us firstthe London proposalstated:
	We will continue to run, and invest in, 373 Crown Post Offices
	referring to post offices in town and city centres. Those 373 offices would be
	alongside those branches run by private subpostmasters and mistresses...As part of the plan...a further 70 branches are expected to move to nearby WH Smith stores under a new partnership agreement, also announced today.
	I was also told:
	For the remaining 15 Crown Post Office branches, including that at Borough SE1, further work to identify a franchise partner to own and manage the branch will be undertaken.
	A letter that I received last week, dated 14 May, dealt more specifically with post offices in my borough and constituency. I expect that other Members representing seats in greater London and beyond have received similar letters. The letter confirms the figures that I read out earlier, and also states:
	The following Crown Post Offices within your constituency are included within the 373 flagship Crown branches
	that is, the protected branches. The other branches are clearly not deemed to be flagship Crown branches. The flagship branches are listed as
	Blackfriars Road, London Bridge and Walworth Road.
	Many colleagues whose London homes are in my part of the world will know and use them. Happily, I was told:
	We wanted to confirm to you personally that these branches remain within the Crown network and that Post Office Ltd will continue to own and directly manage these branches, thus ending a lengthy period of uncertainty for our customers and our people.
	That statement was in a letter from Melanie Corfield, head of external relations, with whom I have regular dealings on the postal delivery service in London SE1 and other areas, about which my constituents and I are still not fully satisfied.
	I am grateful that colleagues representing other London constituencies are present, and in order to be fair I want to list the affected London offices, as the issue is broader than just a Southwark issue. According to my calculations, 16 Crown offices in 13 London boroughs are being told that they will be relocated in nearby WH Smith stores. I should add that the first six offices that went through a period of consultation did not include any Greater London ones, but the remaining 64 are subject to consultation between April and July.
	The following offices in London will be affected:in Bexley, the Crown post office in Bexleyheath;in Bromley, the Bromley Crown post office; in Westminster, the Charing Cross post office and the Oxford Street/Poland Street Crown post office; in Newham, the East Ham Crown post office; in Lewisham, the Forest Hill and the Lewisham post offices; in Hammersmith and Fulham, the Fulham Crown post office; in Hillingdon, the Hayes and the Uxbridge Crown post offices; in Hounslow, the Hounslow Crown post office; in Redbridge, the Ilford Crown post office; in Richmond, the Richmond Crown post office; in Lambeth, the Streatham Crown post office; in Waltham Forest, the Waltham Cross Crown post office; and in Greenwich, the Woolwich Crown post office. I am grateful to my colleagues the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill) and my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park for being present and for their interest in this matter.
	In addition, one post office has already been passed over to a franchise with WH Smith: Hammersmith Crown post office in Hammersmith and Fulham. A further six, including the Borough post office, are up for grabs in that they have an uncertain future. The other five are: the Enfield Wash post office in Enfield; the 238 Essex Road post office in Islington; the Ludgate Circus post office in the City of London; the Tottenham post office in Tottenham; and the Maida Hill post office in Westminster. I never knew that there was a Maida Hill before; I only knew that there was a Maida Vale, but I am reliable informed that that is nearby.
	That is the full list. Thirteen boroughs are affected. Westminster will suffer two losses, as will Lewishamor two transfers, to be fair. Hillingdon will have two transfers as well, other boroughs will have one, and six boroughs might or might not have an office transferred to a franchise operation.
	In all our communities there have been significant numbers of closures of offices. There have been a series of closures in Southwark over the years. Offices have closed at the Elephant and Castle, the Bricklayers Arms, Bermondsey Street and Abbey Street. The result is that there is much greater demand for the existing Crown offices. All those in my constituency have experienced increased demand: the Walworth Road office is often packed, with queues of people both inside and out; the London Bridge and Borough High Street offices are very busy; and the Blackfriars Road office is in the middle of a big commercial development. They are all in areas where buildingis going onwhere there is regeneration and redevelopment. The result is that people who used to use their sub-post office are now having to use the Crown post offices that are left, as the sub-post offices no longer exist.

Ian McCartney: I will come to the general issues, including the hon. Lady's Crown post office, in a moment. I am increasingly frustrated by comments made in this House about Crown post offices. The whole purpose of franchising is to save the Crown post offices.
	I have a Crown post office in my area, but now that the town centre is being redeveloped it is in the wrong location because its customer base has moved. It seems to me that the post office should move nearer its customer base, although that has not yet happened. The whole purpose of the review is to ensure that the Crown post office network is protected and invested in, which means that occasionallyI stress, occasionallyentering a franchise. I shall get to the figures in a moment.
	The future of the post office network is a subject of great relevance to all Members of the House, regardless of the type of constituency we represent, be it urban, rural or, as in my case, a mixture of both. I have already participatedand will no doubt do so againin consultations in my area about the review announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry yesterday. Today's debate shows the need to answer specific questions relating to the Crown network and to the Borough office, in particular, but first I emphasise the fact that the Government share Members' concerns about securing a sustainable future for the network. That was the whole purpose of my right hon. Friend's statement.
	The figures are stark; there is no way of getting around them. That is why the National Federation of SubPostmasters accepts the need to do something about the current size of the network. It is unsustainable. An average of 16 people a week use each of the 800 smallest post offices, at a loss of 17 per visit. Losses have risen to 4 million every week, despite an annual subsidy of 150 million and total investment of 2 billion since 1999. The hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey said that we had not been investing in the network. That is not true.
	Less than a third of the 14,300 post offices are commercially viable. Increasingly, people want to access services in different waysusing direct debits, ATMs, the phone and the internet. More than 5 million Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency customers renew their car tax either online or by phone; a decade ago the number would have been nil.
	Yesterday, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced the Government's decisions, having considered the views put to us during the 12-week national consultation that closed on 8 March. The strategy to put the network on a stable footing will include investment of 1.7 billion, subject to state aid clearance, to support the network and keep it national, with a continuing annual subsidy of up to 150 million until 2011 and recognition of the need for ongoing subsidy beyond that date. Minimum access criteria will be introduced and will apply to all 2,800 postcode districts without exemptions to ensure that there is a national network with comprehensive coverage for customers in every part of the country. Overall, nationally, 99 per cent. of the population will be within 3 milesat mostof a post office and 90 per cent. will be within 1 mile. Additional access criteria will protect deprived urban areas, some of which will be in the hon. Gentleman's constituency, and will apply to 15 per cent. of the most deprived urban areas, rather than only 10 per cent., as previously proposed.
	In applying the criteria, Post Office Ltd will be required to consider the availability of public transport, alternative access to key post office services, local demographics and the impact on local economies. The company will draw up plans, to be put to local consultation, for an expected 2,500 post office closures, within the access criteria. Postwatch, local authorities and sub-postmasters will have input in the plans, which will be implemented over an 18-month period starting this summer. However, the fact that the remaining post office network of about 12,000 will still have more branches than the entire UK banking network should not be forgotten.
	Postwatch, and subsequently the new National Consumer Council will monitor future decisions on the shape and size of the network to ensure that Post Office Ltd complies with the national framework. All the other decisions announced by my right hon. Friend yesterday related to investment and opening the network for services to rural and urban communities that suffer social stress.
	The network of 450 Crown post offices is heavily loss-making; overall, it lost about 70 million last year alone. We support Post Office Ltd's policy for reducing the losses, which includes maintaining a core network of Crown post offices while continuing to drive efficiencies and to franchise branches where suitable opportunities arise. We welcome the commercial deal between Post Office Ltd. and WH Smith, announced on 19 April, to franchise 70 Crown offices, which will secure the retention of the main post office service in each of those areas. The franchises are an investment, not a disinvestment.
	Almost 14,000 post offices are already run by private businesseither individuals or franchise chainsincluding about 900 of the 1,400 large, town centre main post offices. The network has always relied on private business for the majority of its outlets. The offices set to be franchised under the deal with WH Smith represent a tiny fraction of the network as a wholeless than a half a per cent. For the people and the communities concerned, had this deal not been done, it would have been at risk. Therefore, there has been 100 per cent. success in retaining the services by the franchising arrangement.

Ian McCartney: I just thought that we should get that on the record, as it was not quite clear when the hon. Gentleman introduced his petition.
	There are 115 Crown post offices in London, seven of which will be part of the arrangement with WH Smith. Post Office Ltd has also stated that the company will continue to run 373 Crown offices, 102 of which are in London. The Post Office has committed to keep three of the four Crown offices in the hon. Gentleman's constituency under its direct management: those in Blackfriars road, London Bridge and my old stomping ground of Walworth road. He will surely welcome the certainty provided in these cases. We recognise that, at this stage, Post Office Ltd is not able to confirm the position of the future of the branch at Borough one way or the other, so inevitably some uncertainty is involved for customers. He is rightly raising the issue in that regard, and he deserves a response.
	I know that the Post Office has written to the hon. Gentleman to explain the situation, but I do not think that that is sufficient, so I shall ask it to arrange a meeting with himand any other London Members that he wishes to bringto discuss its intentions, and the issues of consultation and WH Smith's engagement with local Members of Parliament.
	I think that WH Smith has a responsibility to engage, so I shall give another commitment. Either myself or the Minister who has direct responsibility for this will write separately to WH Smith to ensure that it carries out its responsibilities to meet elected Members of Parliament and their representatives to discuss the process of the changeoverthe taking over of the franchiseand ensure that hon. Members feel engaged and involved, and that they understand what is happening. I give the hon. Gentleman that commitment.
	I know that the Post Office is working hard to deal with the issue of greater certainty over the future of the network. The fact that the company has already set out a clear position on the majority of the post office network is a welcome and significant step forward. So, I hope that the assurance that I have given about meetings with the Post Office and WH Smith will start the process of consultation and discussion.
	The hon. Member for Richmond Park (Susan Kramer) raised the lack of consultation. There should, and will be, consultation, and I shall ensure that it takes place. I cannot make comments about the specific branch of WH Smith that she mentioned, because I have no knowledge of it, but I can say that any arrangement that is made is not about reducing access to post office serviceswhether or not that relates to disability; it is about improving access, the quality of access and footfall, which is what happens in the main.
	A number of years ago, one of my local post offices closed, but we were able to get it put into an Asda superstore. People were up in arms at Asda running the post office, but the footfall increased from about 80 a month to about 80 an hour. Why did that happen? Because to shop at Asda, which has a turnover of more than 1 million a week, people had to go through the post office. This has been a boost and a boon to the village. This is about explaining things and engaging people, and it is about a sense of ownership: doing things with people rather than doing them to people. Again, I give an assurance about discussions on the particular branch that has been mentioned.
	The hon. Gentleman raised the issue of the Charing Cross branch announced as part of the deal. May I just say for the record that we are talking not about the Charing Cross branch in London, but about Charing Cross in Birkenhead? I did not know that there were two Charing Crosses of such significance. Birkenhead is certainly significant in terms of the north-west.
	Franchising is not about a closure programme. Franchising and conversions are not about reducing the number of post offices; they are about trying to improve and sustain the network. One thing that Post Office Ltd has is expertise in negotiation about franchising. It has lots of experience of that. A decade ago, that was taken from it, and some of the post offices have gone. Who knows whether they would have remained open as a commercial enterprise or whether the sites would have been cleared for other commercial purposes? However, the fact that we have been able to save these means that we have the opportunity, over the next 10 years, to ensure that each of the Crown post offices is in a place that will be accessible to the existing customer base and will allow that customer base to increase. That is certainly true in urban areas, where a great deal of public and private investment is regenerating shopping centres, building new places for shopping and putting in place new transport infrastructure. It is important that we can take account of the impact of that, which is sometimes negative. If that means reaching a genuine arrangement whereby the Post Office gives a franchise that maintains and improves services and increases access to them, hon. Members should move forward sensitively with their constituents. However, as the hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey said, constituents need to be consulted and engaged with so that they are brought into the programme of work. I repeat that I give the hon. Gentleman a commitment on that.
	I will write to the hon. Member for Richmond Park about the specifics of the Richmond post office and arrange a meeting with her about WH Smith. I will make the same arrangements for the constituency of the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill). Having been here all day, the very least that he can get is something out of the Minister.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 Adjourned accordingly at six minutes past Three o'clock.